|
| Posted by: nerveclinic
- [105222] Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 04:19
Clay Buchholz is listed by Rotowire as the #3 prospect in all of baseball.
He's on my bench not my prospect list and I'm not sure I can keep him.
I would trade him for a move up in the draft.
Anyone interested?
|
| | | 1 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 08:29
|
Also here's the best email to reach me on, the old one is over spamed.
|
|
| | | 2 | Tree
ID: 912339
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 11:22
|
i've also got a slew of guys i'm looking to move:
Jason Bay
Billy Butler (one of the top young players in baseball)
Eric Byrnes (100+ runs, 20+ HRs, 50 SB)
Manny Ramirez!
Jered Weaver (potential future #1)
Oliver Perez
Nick Swisher
closers Corpas and Isringhausen
i'm also not opposed to moving Carl Crawford or Mark Teixeira...
|
|
| | | 3 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 11:36
|
Tree see email
|
|
| | | 4 | Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:37
|
How the hell do you think you have Billy Butler?
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 5312218
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:55
|
He was on his final roster. There is a cryptic note on 9/29 by bilirubin about it in this thread. Was there a trade?
|
|
| | | 6 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 15:33
|
Nope. He went over the AB limit and Tree picked him up.
|
|
| | | 7 | Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:13
|
I was watching him creep to the limit but the week he went over must have really caught me on an apathetic week. Only 29abs and I would't have has to deal with our short keeper bench. Prospect keepers almost never prove they can beat out your 7th keeper.
|
|
| | | 8 | Tree
ID: 912339
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:20
|
he went over on about Sept. 20.
i imagine i'll have him for awhile, but, like i said, he can be had via trade...
|
|
| | | 9 | Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:03
|
Even at this point I'd have to drop Konerko to make room for Butler. Does that work? This farm system stinks to high heaven.
|
|
| | | 10 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 18:07
|
I agree it's pretty weak, and doesn't offer much reward for diligence; but, what would you propose to improve it?
|
|
| | | 11 | tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 19:25
|
the only way I could see to improve it would be to increase the prospect roster to 7 and allow 5 to be kept....and allow one of those 5 to be up to 600 abs, instead of 300...
|
|
| | | 12 | Tree
ID: 8113322
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 23:19
|
actually, you couldn't do that 600 AB thing.
because when a guy crosses over the 300 and someone tries to claim him, then the original owner could say "oh! he was my 600 guy!"
unless, after he crosses 300, the original owner has the same 7 day window to make the 600 declaration.
|
|
| | | 13 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 06:18
|
I don't like going from 7 to 5 but last year I asked for a vote on allowing to keep all 5 if an owner wanted but I don't think we actually motivated the league to complete a single vote on any issue last year.
Pretty pathetic complacency.
The 1 player 600 AB's seems like just another headache, no offense, just my thoughts.
|
|
| | | 14 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 23:23
|
I have at least ten keepers so obviously I need to move some players. I have sent out e-mail to a couple of teams looking to make a trade.
Jose Valverde can be had for a draft pick.
Drop me a line if you are interested in improving your keepers.
|
|
| | | 15 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 23:38
|
Taxman -
Please post your e-mail address. Let's talk.
|
|
| | | 16 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 23:46
|
Should we be trading before we have a full league of managers?
|
|
| | | 17 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 23:58
|
Should we be trading before we have a full league of managers?
I thought we were free to trade as soon as the season ends? Has there ever been an official start date?
In any case if we have to name keepers at the end of the month, and we need to make trades to name our keepers, it's getting late.
I thought someone posted the manager position was filled. Let's get going.
|
|
| | | 18 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 00:03
|
I thought we were free to trade as soon as the season ends? Has there ever been an official start date?
Yeah, I guess that's right. I just seems like it would be disadvantage.
Maybe we did fill the vacancy and I just missed it.
|
|
| | | 19 | Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 00:43
|
address posted
|
|
| | | 20 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 01:15
|
bili check the other baseball thread...you said we had a line on a past player to fill the spot. Was that correct or not?
|
|
| | | 21 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 08:39
|
regarding prospects...
another thought:
1. up the number of prospects we have to seven.
2. up the number of prospects we keep to four.
and the biggie -
3. add one spot to the main roster for a prospect. you can fill this spot at any time during the season with someone on your prospect list - whether they have 0 MLB ABs, or have just surpassed the 300 AB threshold.
if you choose, this person is a *bonus* keeper for the following season (technically giving you 8 keepers). it does not count against your seven keepers, nor your 4 prospect keepers.
but you can only fill that spot once during the season, so you have to choose carefully.
i believe this goes a long way toward rewarding managers who are good at "prospecting"...
|
|
| | | 22 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 09:39
|
#21 Tree
I like that possibility, definetly worth discussion.
BTW, have we figured out exactly who is in this league this year?
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 3714358
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 09:43
|
We are in need of one new manager (to replace Sox). MITH has tentatively agreed to fill in temporarily if needed. I'd really like to get him to take off the "interim" part of the title if he agrees to take it, but I've gotten emails from a few managers already asking if we can try to get MITH back.
Other than that one team, we're ready to go.
|
|
| | | 24 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 10:26
|
Tree that is an interesting proposal...I have to think it through but right off the bat interesting.
Sort of complicates explaining the rule to every new manager though.
This would of course be voted on for next year. Believe me it would e great for me this year but we've always voted for future years.
we have to find a way to reward people for smart prospects.
|
|
| | | 25 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 10:40
|
Could someone explain how some managers in the past have been able to keep 4 prospects by moving a prospect onto their roster? I don't remember how it works.
And yes, I have ceased bitching about it, and might be taking the "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" route.
|
|
| | | 26 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 10:45
|
Could someone explain how some managers in the past have been able to keep 4 prospects by moving a prospect onto their roster? I don't remember how it works.
i believe that during the regular draft, a manager moved someone from his prospect list to his main roster, in lieu of a pick at that spot.
this is doable because the prospect draft is after the regular draft.
and the more i think about it, the more i like my suggestion in post 21, and it's really not all that complicated.
|
|
| | | 27 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 11:05
|
If you are referring to 3, it sounds like a policing nightmare, and I don't really understand what the problem is it would fix. It isn't the in-season callups that are the problem, it is the gamble the following year, when you have to decide if they are worth using a keeper spot on, with limited info.
That's not a bug, it's a feature, imho. But as someone who's past prospects included Reyes and Crawford, I could be convinced to give us a bit more evaluation time.
|
|
| | | 28 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 11:47
|
If you are referring to 3, it sounds like a policing nightmare, and I don't really understand what the problem is it would fix. It isn't the in-season callups that are the problem, it is the gamble the following year, when you have to decide if they are worth using a keeper spot on, with limited info.
i don't see how it's an nightmare as far as policing goes.
and as i said, keeping that player you've slotted into that spot DOES NOT have any affect on your other 7 keepers.
|
|
| | | 29 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 12:51
|
Well, you need to make sure that that one spot is either empty or filled with a "prospect", not some random joe. That takes policing, and I'm not willing to do it. Maybe you are.
When you say "during the season," does that pretty much makes the proposal useless, as far is whether it is a keeper or not. If you mean "beginning of the season", then it might have some limited effect, though not any more than the current shell game of bringing a prospect up between drafts.
Maybe I missing something, but this doesn't seem like is solves the actual "problem", which it sounds like people think exists: namely, people are having trouble committing to a prospect as a keeper after having only seen them for half a season.
I don't see this as a problem, but even if I did, I don't see how your proposal would help.
|
|
| | | 30 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 13:01
|
Well, you need to make sure that that one spot is either empty or filled with a "prospect", not some random joe.
it's similar to the RIHC - we have two slots for "injured" players, and they stay empty unless needed. Yahoo does tell you if you have an empty slot on your roster. if you don't see that when you log in, you know you have one too many guys.
When you say "during the season," does that pretty much makes the proposal useless, as far is whether it is a keeper or not.
not at all.
we'll use Billy Butler as an example. If Baldwin had called him up at any point during last season, he could have held on to him with that Prospect spot.
thusly, as he related in post 9, he wouldn't have to drop Konerko for Butler. he'd get to keep both.
Maybe I missing something, but this doesn't seem like is solves the actual "problem", which it sounds like people think exists: namely, people are having trouble committing to a prospect as a keeper after having only seen them for half a season.
how so? it allows you to actually get a full season and a half, if you choose. the 300 ABs, plus the entire next season if you want.
remember, he does NOT count against your keepers if he's called up mid-season and you slide him into that extra roster slot, and you choose to keep him.
|
|
| | | 31 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 13:14
|
Ah. I see. Just expand the number of keepers, and it will do much the same thing without the policing headache.
If you want the haves to remain stronger, and the have-nots to get even weaker, that is.
|
|
| | | 32 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 13:27
|
Ah. I see. Just expand the number of keepers, and it will do much the same thing without the policing headache.
no, it's different. this slot is for one of your prospects ONLY. it rewards managers who are good at prospecting.
If you want the haves to remain stronger, and the have-nots to get even weaker, that is.
i don't see how. the whole point of *this* system - where that keeper must be from your prospect list - is that it has nothing to do with haves or haves nots.
it has to do with a team that is diligent in its prospecting. it rewards teams that are good in the prospect draft. our current system can ultimately punish someone who is good in the prospect draft.
that's why it's important to differentiate here that this is NOT a standard keeper.
|
|
| | | 33 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 13:54
|
All I'm saying is that for the most part, I generally have at least one keeper who would qualify, and I'm guessing that is the case with most folks. I don't think making a complicated rule that's hard to police will change things more than a much simpler rule (increasing the keepers). Anyway, we already do this with the shell-game call-up between drafts. So all this would do would increase it to 12 keepers (9 regular and 3 prospects). I think we already have too many; we are pretty much keeping our entire roster as it is; at least every useful bat.
So you are taking another potentially high-upside player out of the draft pool that could help turn around a struggling franchise on draft day.
Last year I took Gary Sheffield in the first round. That tells you there is already a dearth of high-upside players available in the regular draft.
This assumes that the better teams also tend to have better, deeper prospects. I think that assumption is probably valid.
I am generally going to be in favor of proposals that help balance the league by allowing past struggling franchises to more quickly turn themselves around. I am going to be against things that make the rich richer and increase the already large imbalance between the top and bottom.
If I thought folks could look past their own self-interest and it would pass, I'd fly a proposal to cut keepers to 5. That way I could avoid deciding between keeping an ancient closer, a catcher or a washed-up 'roid monster. I probably have one of the strongest teams top to bottom, but I really only have 5 "keepers", in any real sense of the word. Allowing someone like me to protect 2nd-tier players as "keepers" does the game a disservice.
|
|
| | | 34 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 14:03
|
I am generally going to be in favor of proposals that help balance the league by allowing past struggling franchises to more quickly turn themselves around. I am going to be against things that make the rich richer and increase the already large imbalance between the top and bottom.
Here, here. Whomever is taking over Sox's squad has his or her work cut out for him/her. Right now, 100 players or so are out of the draft pool, let's not increase that number.
If this rule were in place, Biliruben would get to keep Ryan Braun as that special eight keeper. I don't like the thought of that.
It's true that landing a prospect who blossoms into a keeper is like catching lightening in a bottle, but I like that. BJ Upton is a great example. He passed his 300 at bat threshhold in 2006 and didn't look good doing it. I could have used him as this eighth keeper and man, I'd love to have him now. I drafted he guy when he was in high school. Sometimes it just doesn't work out for you. As Nerve loves to remind me, Joe Mauer, whom I also drafted while he was a high schooler, did the same to me. You take your chances.
|
|
| | | 35 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 15:31
|
bili though not any more than the current shell game of bringing a prospect up between drafts.
Addressing just the issue of moving your prospect to your team before the prospect draft. It's not a shell game. We have done this for a number of years. It's completely logical if you consider...
1) You can only do it if he is an eligible yahoo player available in the draft.
2) Since he is "eligible" he's available for a team.
3) Since he's on your prospect list you are the only one eligible to draft him or move him to your team.
4) Once you move him he is no longer a prospect. He might not even play a game (if he gets hurt or has a bad spring)
5) In any case he's your player and if you move him to your team before the prospect draft, you have an open slot.
We already have a system that is punishing managers who have strong prospect benches by only allowing them to keep 3.
Why is this such an issue?
|
|
| | | 36 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 15:36
|
31 and 32 very amusing two socialists arguing over the "haves and have nots".
...just kidding guys, not red baiting I promise.
|
|
| | | 37 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 15:37
|
I have given up that fight, Nerve. You have won, and I conceded last year in in 25 above.
If you really care about my long-past complaint, my main beef was that it increased the number of keepers by 1, if I recall correctly. If you do this hinkiness you are able to protect a total of 11 players from the previous year's rosters (main and prospect), where people who don't do it are only able to protect 10.
But like I said, I'm passed it.
|
|
| | | 38 | biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Feb 05, 2008, 15:38
|
"31 and 32 very amusing two socialists arguing over the "haves and have nots"."
- keep reading. It gets better!
|
|
| | | 39 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Feb 06, 2008, 01:59
|
Looking at my squad this year, I wouldn't mind only 5 keepers.
It would make the draft a lot more interesting and worthwhile and it would give the "have nots" a better shot each year.
I swear I'm not a socialist though.
|
|
| | | 40 | Tree
ID: 50137108
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 19:28
|
i'd like us to continue to discuss what i brought up in post 21 about keepers.
i don't want another pre-season where things like this fall by the wayside...
|
|
| | | 41 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 19:48
|
How about allowing you to keep a prospect for an extra year [past his eligibility limits] if you are willing to spend/lose a prospect keeper slot for him.
|
|
| | | 42 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 01:23
|
Tree why don't you start a rules thread with a proposal?
This is a trade thread and it starts to get convoluted if we try o do everything in the same thread.
|
|
| | | 43 | Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:54
|
Sensless to start proposing more rule changes until league managers are required to vote. Rules proposed in this league should be under a thread entitled "The Never Ending Story"
|
|
| | | 44 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 13:29
|
i agree with Tax.
we really do need full participation, or, we need a change in the format, where it's something as simple as "a majority of managers who cast their votes within a 5 day time frame" or something...
|
|
| | | 45 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 13:50
|
we really do need full participation, or, we need a change in the format, where it's something as simple as "a majority of managers who cast their votes within a 5 day time frame" or something...
I like that idea, might wake some people up...
|
|
| | | 46 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 15:17
|
sounds to me like we need some discussion, then then a commissioner edict.. ;o)
|
|
| | | 47 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 08:51
|
still looking to make some moves:
Jason Bay
Billy Butler (one of the top young players in baseball)
Eric Byrnes (100+ runs, 20+ HRs, 50 SB)
Manny Ramirez!
Jered Weaver (potential future #1)
Oliver Perez
Nick Swisher
closers Corpas and Isringhausen
i'm also not opposed to moving Carl Crawford or Mark Teixeira...or even ALBERT PUJOLS....
|
|
| | | 49 | Tree
ID: 231461818
Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 21:44
|
let's revisit post 44?
|
|
| | | 50 | Boldwin
ID: 3013265
Mon, Feb 18, 2008, 22:30
|
Sounds like an improvement to me.
|
|
| | | 51 | nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Feb 19, 2008, 05:27
|
post 44
I would go along with it and it seems like a "procedural" move not a rule that can help ones current year team so hopefully we can implement it this year.
|
|
|
|